AVINASH SOMAKANT BHATE, J.

( 1 ) THIS Revision challenges the order passed in R. A. No. 180/90 which was decided by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 20-9-1994.

( 2 ) PETITIONER herein is the landlady and had filed the eviction petition against the respondents tenant. They shall be referred hereafter as petitioner and "respondent respectively. The petitioner initiated the eviction proceedings under the provisions of A. P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act by R. C. 1436/86 before the IV Additional Rent Contrailer, Hyderabad. By the said eviction petition, eviction was sought on three grounds permitted under the Act. Theywere (l)Wilful default in the matter of payment of rent of the demised premises for the period between March 1981 to 31st March 1986; (2) Bonafide and reasonable requirement of the demised premises for starting a business by the son of the petitioner and (3) Change of user of the demised premises from the one for which the premises were let out. The petition was resisted by the respondent on all the grounds. It was contended by the respondent in his counter mat though the petitioner s contention that the rent deed was signed by responden

Click Here to Read the rest of this document